DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ SPEAKS AGAIN

Personally Speaking by Sam Person

The relative silence surrounding the Occupy Wall Street “Movement” was somewhat shattered last week by the most recent inane utterance of Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (who is also the DNC chairlady), speaking in New Hampshire.

Wasserman-Schultz placed blame on the Tea Party for the tragic shootings in Tucson, Arizona, last year. Her comments necessitate a reminder of what the two groups are about, and which one is more of a threat to the public order and well-being.

Individuals who have observed the two groups over the past two or so years are well aware of the nature of the Tea Party, and the manner in which it conducts its business – and should be just as aware of the impact and tactics of the Occupy Movement.

As to the Tea Party, the group has tended to avoid violence and leave venues it uses for gatherings in virtual pristine condition when it is done with an event.

On the other hand, the Occupy crowds have desecrated public property, closed ports, fouled its gathering places, interfered with economic progress, made life difficult for the “99%” it ostensibly serves, and otherwise been a public nuisance.

The Tea Party has never posed a physical threat and it is not likely to – not so the Occupy Movement. As the heat of the 2012 election campaign will increase, it is not out of the question that the violent and/or criminal actions of the Occupy Movement will rear up again – considering the source of its support.

Occupy supporters include all types who hardly qualify as “99%ers.” This group includes entertainment celebrities, and political personages – including President Barack Obama and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. After all, the President’s ”living the high life” is well known. By the same token, Pelosi raves about the Occupy Movement’s “common man” approach all the way from her very upscale “digs” in San Francisco to her $10,000 a night suite in Hawaii this past Christmas Holiday.

Needless to say, unions will also be part of the activity that will emerge with warmer weather – and in their wake, chaos will likely follow. It will also come to pass that the financial support of various organizations funded by noted liberals hell-bent on re-electing Obama will add their voice.

Danger will confront American voters if Barack Obama continues to cater to the Occupy Movement. The Movement will bolster the racial and class warfare overtones that have become the hallmark of Obama’s re-election effort. Nor should it go unnoticed that the President himself has encouraged violence more than once: for example, his classic un-Presidential “They bring a knife, we bring a gun.”

It is not inconceivable that some outspoken critics might well encourage unintended violence by their rhetoric. Among these could well be the likes of Professor Cornel West (soon to be affiliated with Union Theological Seminary), who has said that ‘the push for more entitlements is going to be fought in the streets." These are not words to be dismissed lightly as the drive to create an entitlement state continues. (Professor West has a long history with the Occupy Movement. and is hardly a shrinking violet.)

Then there is Van Jones (former “Green Jobs Czar” for President Obama), who last September stated that the “progressive fight back is coming in October.” It is possible that he also had October 2012 in mind as the election campaign peaks.

Consider also that the very Democrats and Liberals who espouse the Occupy Movement have proven – once again – what hypocrites they are. After all, they have taken the position that Occupy “encampments’ will not be tolerated in Charlotte, NC - site of the Wasserman-Schultz led Democrat National Committee convention next summer.

  • Print

Comments » 12

cozyboy writes:

Is she married to Ed Shultz? I like Limbaugh's nickname for her "Debbie BLABBERMOUTH Shultz"

rlberkley writes:

Your observations about the OWS & TP movements has all the depth of a dessert plate. They share many of the same grievances. They oppose the plutocracy of Wall Street and reject the overreaching of government, although specific definitions of "overreaching" vary. Both decry the marginalization of the general bulk of the public by influence peddlers and lobbyists. While the TP sees the election process as a viable means to curbing these abuses, the OWS believes that the election process has been deeply corrupted by those who have committed the abuse. Interestingly, many TP members are deeply disturbed by the actions of those their votes sent to the seats of power.

The TP has a nostalgia for "the good old days" and OWS would discard much of what the TP regards as good and seeks a future that is free of the power of special interests that is so dominant today. Both groups are unhappy about the rise of the Super PAC. Neither group has a firm prescription for the future, rather they have guiding principles that motivate them.

samperson writes:

in response to rlberkley:

Your observations about the OWS & TP movements has all the depth of a dessert plate. They share many of the same grievances. They oppose the plutocracy of Wall Street and reject the overreaching of government, although specific definitions of "overreaching" vary. Both decry the marginalization of the general bulk of the public by influence peddlers and lobbyists. While the TP sees the election process as a viable means to curbing these abuses, the OWS believes that the election process has been deeply corrupted by those who have committed the abuse. Interestingly, many TP members are deeply disturbed by the actions of those their votes sent to the seats of power.

The TP has a nostalgia for "the good old days" and OWS would discard much of what the TP regards as good and seeks a future that is free of the power of special interests that is so dominant today. Both groups are unhappy about the rise of the Super PAC. Neither group has a firm prescription for the future, rather they have guiding principles that motivate them.

Only ONE of the two groups has resulted in dozens of acts of criminal activity, not limited to destroying private property, rape. illegal drug dealing, interfering with commerce, preventing people from access to their place of employment - and displays disregard for the very people they profess to represent.

I offer that for your dessert.

Guess which one.

philsco writes:

"the discourse in America, the discourse in congress in particular... has really changed, I'll tell you. I hesitate to place blame but I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and a lack of civilty with the growth of the tea party movement"

this is the full quote Sammy, she's not blaming the tea party for the shooting, she's blaming the tea party for "edginess" the "lack of civil discourse" that has taken place.

And this is what the uneducated, ditto heads such as yourself are to blame for.

the rest of your tripe is laughable and demonstrates quite well why some people are better off just reading the comics section and discussing lighter topics instead of complex sociopolitical issues and trends.

conchsoup writes:

How quickly we forget (and no amount of denial will change the easy to research history located on the web):

Fearing tea party violence, four Arizona Republicans resign

District Republican chairman: ‘I don’t want to take a bullet for anyone’

Fearing violence from tea party activists, Arizona Legislative District 20 Republican Chairman Anthony Miller and several others tendered their resignation this week following mass shootings that left six dead and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) in critical condition.

Miller, a 43-year-old former campaign worker for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), said that verbal attacks and blog posts from members of the tea party had him fearing for the safety of his family, according to a report in The Arizona Republic.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/ah...

OP writes:

in response to conchsoup:

How quickly we forget (and no amount of denial will change the easy to research history located on the web):

Fearing tea party violence, four Arizona Republicans resign

District Republican chairman: ‘I don’t want to take a bullet for anyone’

Fearing violence from tea party activists, Arizona Legislative District 20 Republican Chairman Anthony Miller and several others tendered their resignation this week following mass shootings that left six dead and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) in critical condition.

Miller, a 43-year-old former campaign worker for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), said that verbal attacks and blog posts from members of the tea party had him fearing for the safety of his family, according to a report in The Arizona Republic.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/ah...

And then upon further research it came out that Loughner leaned Left and was in way associated with, or even fond of the Tea Party. The whole Tea Party is violent meme is a fiction created by the Left.

ChilonofSparta writes:

Speaking of DWS, she downplayed Romney's New Hampshire win because he "only" scored 39 percent of the vote. Romney, DWS reasoned, failed to win a real victory and left New Hampshire a "wounded" candidate.

Well, guess who else "only" scored 39 percent of the vote in his presidential election?

Abraham Lincoln.

Yes, that Abraham Lincoln received "only" 39 percent of the vote in the 1860 presidential election. SOURCE: The American Presidency Project http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showel...

By DWS's calculus, Abraham Lincoln failed to win a real victory in 1860 and was, therefore, a "wounded" president.

So "wounded," in fact, by DWS's reasoning, that preserving the Union was beyond Lincoln's grasp.

ChilonofSparta writes:

Democrats libel the Tea Party as idiots, racists, and brutes.

It's always struck me as a really dumb political strategy on their part, intentionally alienating a huge segment of the voting America public.

It certainly didn't work out too well for them in 2010, did it?

It won't work any better in 2012, though they'll try to argue that Tea Party issues are similar to the Occupy movement issues.

Democrats, and Occupy, place their faith in government neverending. Thinking people, however, recognize that government is dumb-as-a-stone corrupt, incompetent, malacious, and dangerous.

That's why the Founders created govenment of strictly limited and divided powers, which, of course, is anathema to Democrats and Occupiers.

YOURKIDDING writes:

THIS ONES GOT TO GO VOTE HER OUT.

TiredoftheBS writes:

Poison flows from her every time she speaks.

gna writes:

in response to ChilonofSparta:

Speaking of DWS, she downplayed Romney's New Hampshire win because he "only" scored 39 percent of the vote. Romney, DWS reasoned, failed to win a real victory and left New Hampshire a "wounded" candidate.

Well, guess who else "only" scored 39 percent of the vote in his presidential election?

Abraham Lincoln.

Yes, that Abraham Lincoln received "only" 39 percent of the vote in the 1860 presidential election. SOURCE: The American Presidency Project http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showel...

By DWS's calculus, Abraham Lincoln failed to win a real victory in 1860 and was, therefore, a "wounded" president.

So "wounded," in fact, by DWS's reasoning, that preserving the Union was beyond Lincoln's grasp.

??? This post makes no sense. Comparing small party primary vote to national election?? McCain won in New Hampshire with 37% then got swamped in the national election. DWS..Rocks!! You could look it up on Wikipedia..but oops..sorry..site shut down in protest of more corporate power grabbing through SOPA!!

Solitary1 writes:

The Tea Party & OWS do have similar goals of smaller less intrusive government, no buying and selling of politicians, and a government that listens to the people again.
The Tea Party has seen fit to amp up the hostile rhetoric towards anyone who they determine does not believe the same ideological message. You can preach to the tallest building all about how pristine Tea people left the protest areas but it doesn’t amount to anything when you remind yourselves that it was your own membership that saw fit to bring loaded weapons to ‘peaceful’ protests.
The Tea Party inflamed hostilities with death panels, socialism bogeymen, foreign hostiles, and other deliberate lies promoted by their corporate handlers. Not to mention that the appeal of a religious nation is just too desirable for them to ignore.
Though they have forgotten, history is replete with failed theocracies.
Is OWS all that great? Of course not. OWS has seen fit to challenge the instruments of political power by occupying locations, shutting down ports, and generally getting in the way of business as usual. What did you actually think ‘occupy’ meant?
While OWS protests the locations that the powerful operate and derive funding from, the Tea Party protested in highly sanctioned public locations that didn’t affect anyone. Just how does standing around the Mall in Washington DC disrupt business as usual on Capitol Hill?
Have there been problems with OWS gatherings? Of course but anytime large groups of people gather some with not so righteous motives are certain to include themselves, unless gun totters and racists were really part of the Tea Party movement.. Something to consider.
Government and corporations were really not concerned with the Tea Party simply because they were easy to direct. The Tea Party message was carefully orchestrated by powerful forces that set the dialogue in motion, pointed out the adversaries, and promoted the ideology. Ask any Tea Partier and they will confirm that they have no idea what I just stated and that they are grass roots to the core, faithfully. Yet riot police have never been called in to arrest or clear out a Tea Party protest. Why is it that municipalities are so afraid of a peaceful protest movement? I don’t think that are but I do think that the moneyed interests funding campaigns are and when they get nervous it’s time to bring down the hammer of oppression to put themselves at ease.
The Tea Party wants less government intervention in your everyday life, unless someone is doing something that they don’t agree with then they need Big Government.
OWS is much the same way except that they don’t want corporations and powerful interests calling the shots on what is and is not acceptable.
That is the major difference between the Tea Party and OWS.

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features